RE: [OEP] n-ary relations and topic maps

For the record, the idea to add a note about TM to the n-ary document arose before the TM
Task Force was formed.
I agree with Lars and Fabien.

Bernard

**********************************************************************************

Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com

"Making Sense of Content" :  http://www.mondeca.com
"Everything is a Subject" :  http://universimmedia.blogspot.com

**********************************************************************************

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Lars Marius Garshol
> Envoye : mardi 7 decembre 2004 10:53
> A : public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Objet : Re: [OEP] n-ary relations and topic maps
>
>
>
>
> * Christopher Welty
> |
> | I think I agree with the point Lars is making, which is, I think,
> | that the relationship between n-ary relations in topic maps and
> | "workarounds" for RDF probably doesn't belong in the n-ary relations
> | note.
>
> I was thinking this as I wrote, although I didn't explicitly write it,
> so I do agree with you.
>
> | So I don't think there is a need for an appendix in the n-ary
> | relations note for topic maps, because that opens the door to
> | arbitrarily extending the note for every other format.  If there is
> | a need to describe the relationship between the workaround in the
> | n-ary note and topic maps, then I think it should be in a note about
> | topic maps and their relationship to RDF.
>
> Yes.
>
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 11:04:05 UTC